As we recently pointed out, Vista and other products are in fact the catalysts and the cause for the assault on Free software. Free software has not magically evolved overnight. Rather, Microsoft is reaching a sad realisation. Development is hindered in a very nasty way, due to lack of modularity that made it unmaintainable.

Development, however, is not the only factor. Linux is a risk for other reasons. It is associated with competition that is based on price. Yesterday, another short report talked about Microsoft’s attempt at subscription-based (pay-as-you-go) operating systems. Microsoft is trying to reinvent itself. Meanwhile, it does not like anything it sees. Consider the short essay “Microsoft: FUDing to Hide its Fears?”.

Even more galling, Dell recently bucked the system by announcing they’ll optionally install Windows XP in new machines because so many potential buyers didn’t want DRM-crippled Vista. To add insult to injury they’re be adding an Ubuntu Linux-equipped line later this year, and Michael Dell himself publicly professes to using Ubuntu, OpenOffice.org and Firefox on his laptop.

“An awful lot of customers are going to Microsoft and saying ‘we need you to interoperate more easily with our Linux server.’ They’re thinking if they’ve got one Linux server, then how long is Microsoft going to keep the Windows servers there,” Mr. D’Aprano said. “People are thinking about paying thousands of dollars to migrate to Vista with the costs of retraining, software licenses, hardware updates being incredibly significant. This explains why there’s been so little interest in upgrading to Vista.”

The mirror in our story, which can be equated to Linux, is just a scapegoat. Microsoft’s failures have Linux take the blame. The weapon of choice is an absurd legistlation.

Some observers believe that Microsoft is actually stirring up heated debates over patents and the patent system in order to rally support for a wide-ranging patent reform bill recently debated in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

To some observers, Microsoft Corp. seemed to have an odd sense of timing when it complained recently that open-source projects have allegedly violated 235 of its patents.

At the same time, Microsoft’s Washington, D.C., staff is pushing for a patent overhaul bill that would make it tougher for patent holders to sue and collect large damage awards against infringers.

That patent reform bill came up for debate Wednesday, just days after Fortune published a story in which Microsoft officials claimed widespread violation of its patents in open source software.

Yet this apparently irresistible progress of open source raises a question about the change in its underlying philosophy. Widespread adoption means that some of the more idealistic goals of the open source movement may have been pushed into the background.

The strategies employed by Sun, Microsoft and Adobe are actually pulling the open-source community closer to proprietary software. Yet mixed developments do not work as well as those built on the cooperative pure open-source model.

Novell’s vision of becoming an open source company seems ever so dim. Its press releases still describe it as a supporter of open source (the “about” part), but for all we know, it seeme to return to its proprietary roots. Gartner might as well just add it to its “Open Source” parasite list. Bruce’s hypothesis that Novell’s deal with Microsoft was an exit strategy makes some more sense now. One wonders if Novell goes back to its roots and uses Linux merely as a tool, just as Apple used BSD. Using it still better than exploiting. How about that BSD TCP/IP stack, Microsoft?

Wide GPLv3 adoption and an early draft finalisation is a nightmare scenario to Novell and Microsoft. Carla Schroder attempts get a step ahead of the endless FUD and explain the implications of GPLv3 if adopted by enterprises. To sum it all up:

What if you cry yourself to sleep at night because you really really want to have locked hardware and discriminatory patent agreements? No problem — knock yourself out. You just can’t do it with GPL code.

As we have argued recently, the media is often (mis)used as an obedient ‘puppet’. It will not necessarily present a balanced and rational analysis. Instead, it might rely on messages which comes from public relations departments and lawyers. Have a look at this column which argues that none of Microsoft’s patent claims is news:

So put the Microsoft “patent happening” in context rather than reading too much into the mainstream business media blast and its fallout. Microsoft is taking it slow on this issue; the markets should also.

A good observation is made by Matt Aslett, who has just published an article about SpikeSource and its collaboration with Microsoft.

While claiming that open source software violates 235 of its patents, Microsoft is still working to ensure that open source software runs on its Windows operating system, as evidenced by its recent deal with SpikeSource.

Essentially, the message to take is that Microsoft threatens not only its customers, but also its business partners, whom it pretends/purports to support. It truly seems like Microsoft has another dilemma in its hand. Whether it just intimidates or even takes legal action, a lot damage has been done. We have seen an example of this, namely a CEO’s boycott. In essence, the company alienates both customers and business partners. It ought to have listened to the advice from Jonathan Schwartz.

Finally, a contradiction can be claimed here. If Microsoft’s so-called ‘intellectual property’ is not honoured by open source projects, why does the company collaborate with them? Smells like hypocrisy, does it not?

Even before Microsoft announced that open-source software collectively infringes on 235 Microsoft patents — Linux alone allegedly trespassing on 42 of them — it was clear that the U.S. patent system is broken. A system that was created to protect invention has warped into a heavy drag on innovation in America.

An open letter in LXer requests that Novell sidles with the Free software community (for a change) and actually assists in debunking Microsoft’s bluff.

I call on you, Novell, to tell the community which patents Microsoft thinks are infringed by the GNU/Linux operating system. You know the patent numbers. Microsoft gave them to you. Now release them so we all can publicly prove what you claim: That GNU/Linux infringes no Microsoft patents. If you do, then you may gain back some of the credibility in the community that you lost when you signed the cross-license deal with Microsoft last year.

The history at IBM is one reason why I am encouraged about Sun, encouraged about Linux, and predict nothing but trouble for Microsoft.

Will the idea of forcing companies to enter alliances actually work? Or will it just lead to inheriting the RIAA’s negative and repellent image?

Forced Alliances

Microsoft’s decision to call out open source on patent violations is not about stifling innovation or slowing the adoption of Linux or open-source software in general, according to Brad Shimmin, a principal analyst at Current Analysis. For Microsoft, he said, this is about deriving long-term revenue from a burgeoning market in which it cannot play.

“What Microsoft intends here is for these vendors to enter into patent-licensing deals just as Novell did last year, thereby avoiding potentially costly litigation — either directly from Microsoft or indirectly with Microsoft taking aim at their customers, a la the Recording Industry Association of America,” Shimmin argued.

It’s the age-old formula: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they threaten to have a colony of attorneys descend upon you from a great height. The Open Source Movement has truly arrived.